Carl W. Kenney II is an award winning columnist and novelist. He is committed to engaging readers into a meaningful discussion related to matters that impact faith and society. He grapples with pondering the impact faith has on public space while seeking to understand how public space both hinders and enhances the walk of faith.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Ken Cuccinelli's battle against sex

I get a little tetchy when I hear of efforts to limit
sex.My views related to human sexuality
are rooted in a theology that contends sex is created to be enjoyed and serves
the purpose of more than just making babies.There are days when I feel like pimp slapping Augustine for writing The Confessions.He started this mess.

I also believe in individual freedoms.What happens between two people in the
bedroom should not be limited by law.Besides, we have a Constitution that protects the freedoms of all
citizens.

Don’t we?

Not according to the lemon suckers hell bent on
redefining the Constitution.Ken
Cuccinelli is captain of the lemon sucker party and Attorney General in
Virginia.Cuccinelli, a Republican
candidate for governor, went to battle against a court’s decision that struck
down a Virginia law involving sodomy and oral sex.

The case involved William MacDonald, a 47-year-old man
who solicited oral sex from a 17-year-old woman.Given 15 is the legal age of consent in Virginia,
MacDonald couldn’t be charged for statutory rape.Officials charged him with soliciting a minor
by inducing her to commit sodomy.He
served a year in prison and was forced to register as a sex offender.

In March, the Virginia sodomy law was struck down by
the federal court.MacDonald’s
conviction was thrown out based on Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court
decision that ruled anti-sodomy statues can’t be used by states to regulate
private consensual sex among adults.

Lemon suckers rarely take no as an answer.Cuccinelli decided to appeal the case to the
Supreme Court, arguing the court should interpret the sodomy law to apply only
to sex involving 16-17-year-olds.Cuccinelli wanted the court to ignore the meaning and intent of the law
to advance his goals.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite the lemon.It didn’t help Cuccinelli’s cause that the
Virginia sodomy statute fails to mention age.Proof is in the pudding, they say.In this case “they” are right. The Virginia legislature attempted to
rewrite the law to include the age limits.Cuccinelli killed the bill proving he had other plans with the law.

Cuccinelli’s trick would have carried a boat load of
hypocrisy.In asking a federal court to
convert a state anti-sodomy law into an anti-statutory rape law, MacDonald
could have intercourse with a 17-year-old girl without facing a felony
conviction, but would be charged as a felon and forced to register as a sex
offender for merely asking for oral sex.

Young people between the age of 16 and 17 would face
felony charges for choosing oral or anal sex over vagina sex. That prospect
should alarm all parents in Virginia with gay teens.Old lemon sucker says the law was intended to
protect youth, but its real intent is to punish kids who are gay.

I’m certain that Cuccinelli’s fellow lemon suckers affirm
the Attorney General’s position with a resounding amen and thank ya Jesus.But hold on before the Holy Ghost sends you
to dancing.What is asserted in this
attack against sodomy?

Virginia’s law describes sodomy as "crimes
against nature," which include all oral as well as anal sex, even between
consenting adults.That dude running to
become the Governor of the state wanted to make it a felony.He wanted to criminalize activity that is
considered normal between consenting adults.That includes married couples.

You have to be careful when you start playing with
laws.A few changed words could be the
difference between getting the old freak on and being sent to prison.If interpreted a certain way, a sodomy law
could lead to married couples being sent to prison for having oral sex.

Gulp.Did that
one hurt?Did I just hear someone cry, “Arrest
me officer?”

Of course that’s a farfetched possibility, but shouldn’t
we ponder the consequences of all presuppositions?Shouldn’t we be apprehensive of laws that
view anal and oral sex as illegitimate activity deserving punishment even when
performed by married couples?Shouldn’t
we be careful in pressing laws that call into question the way heterosexual
couples choose to celebrate their bond of love?

Based on the Virginia law, aren’t most of us guilty of
sodomy? Given it’s defined as "crimes against nature," and includes
all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults, shouldn’t most of
us be concerned?

Are you a criminal?

If not, pick up a copy of Alex Comfort’s book The Joy of Sex. There’s much more to
life than the missionary position.God
forbid if everything else is made unlawful.

Total Pageviews

Carl W. Kenney II

Carl was named the best serious columnist of 2011 by the North Carolina Press Association for his work with the News & Observer's community paper The Durham News and in 2016 by the Missouri Press Association for his columns in the Columbia Missourian. He is a columnist with the News & Observer and Co-Executive Producer of "God of the Oppressed" an upcoming documentary film on black liberation theology. He is a former Adjunct Professor at the University of Missouri - School of Journalism and Adjunct Instructor at Duke University, the Center for Documentary Studies. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He furthered his education at Duke University and attained a Master of Divinity. He was named a Fellow in Pastoral Leadership Development at the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 14, 2005. He is a freelance writer with his commentary appearing in The Washington Post, Religious News Services,The Independent Weekly and The Durham Herald-Sun. Carl is the author of two novels: “Preacha’ Man” and the sequel “Backslide”.
He has led congregations in Missouri and North Carolina